Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bajana Ranganayakulu Rangappa 2 Others vs The State Of A.P. 13 Others on 1 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1199 OF 2011
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
ORDER
No DATE NOTE
58. 01.04.2022 AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J And G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) I.A.No.6 of 2021 Heard Mr. Pappu Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. P. Aditya Harsha Vardhan, learned counsel, representing M/s. Pillix Law Firm, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant no.3/accused no.7 in Interlocutory Application No.6 of 2021 and Mr. A. Chennakeshavulu, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Central Bureau of Investigation for the State.
2. The prayer in the present Interlocutory Application is for suspension of sentence and release on bail of the applicant, who has been convicted under Sections 148, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 449, 332 r/w 149, 449 and 120-B(i) r/w 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 148 of IPC; sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC in respect of the death of deceased nos.1 to 3 each;
2sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC for causing injuries to P.Ws.29, 30, 12 and 13 each; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 332 r/w 149 IPC; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 449 IPC; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act; sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 120(B) r/w 302 IPC by ordering all the sentences shall run concurrently, by judgment dated 25.08.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Division of Anantapur at Anantapur.
3. The incident relates to an occurrence, where the then sitting M.L.A. along with two other persons were gun down in the party office on 24.01.2005. The applicant is the accused in the larger conspiracy as the role assigned to him in the crime is that when the deceased were killed inside the office of the political party, he along with others were outside and had hurled bombs to divert attention and create confusion, so as to provide a safe way to the main assailants.
34. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that in the present case, the applicant has good chances of acquittal for the court below has truely go on tenuous circumstantial evidence to connect him to the crime which will not stand the test of law and in fact benefit of doubt is required to be given to him.
5. It was submitted that except for two witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 3 and 4, who are said to be eye witnesses, the petitioner has been connected to the crime and that too in the capacity of a person, who was outside the venue, where the actual killing took place and the role is that he along with two others had hurled bombs, but the same has neither resulted in any injury nor any remnants of any bomb have been recovered by the police. Further, it was contended that most importantly, the presence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 before the police is more than 45 days after the incident and there is no explanation as to why when they claimed that they were moving along with the deceased in his bullet proof vehicle, they were neither in touch with the wife of the deceased nor any family member or even the police for 45 days and only at the instance of P.W.2, they were produced before the CBI from where the statement was recorded and they became witnesses.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant was accused in another case, in which he has been acquitted. Further, it was contended that there is no allegation or any statement of any witness to indicate that he had played any overtact which resulted in any injury to any person. It was also contended that the petitioner has been in actual custody for more than 15 4 years and 9 months and had been out on provisional bail only for one day on the occasion of the death of his father. It was contended that the good behaviour of the applicant in jail is obvious from the fact that the jail authorities had recommended his case for parole though unfortunately it was turned down by the local Superintendent of Police. Thus, it was contended that if the remission period of the petitioner is added, the period of incarceration in the eye of law would be much more.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI contended that there is enough evidence to indicate that the applicant was present on the scene of the crime and witnesses have also stated with regard to the role he played in the conspiracy and also the active participation by way of hurling bombs. He has taken the Court to the depositions of various witnesses which the Court does not find individually to go into at this stage. However, on a specific query of the Court as to whether there was any ground which learned counsel would be taking to oppose the prayer for suspension of sentence and release on bail with regard to what impact it may have, if the Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail like any threat to life to others or to the applicant himself or otherwise there being some detrimental effect to the society at large as also whether his behavior in the present has not been up to the mark, learned counsel for the Special Public Prosecutor, CBI did not come up with any such stand on the basis of instructions received by him and even in the counter filed by him.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, by way of reply, submitted that even otherwise, 5 the Hon'ble Courts have also considered the aspect that where the incarceration is of substantial period and there is less likelihood of the appeal itself being heard expeditiously, as also taking into consideration the overall conduct of the convict and the response of the authorities with regard to there being no threat to the society at large, indulgence has been granted by suspending the sentence and releasing the concerned convict on bail.
9. Though the judgments have been referred to by learned Senior Counsel, but in view of the broader principle, the Court is not noting them individually.
10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the sentence against the applicant-appellant no.3/accused no.7 in the present case is suspended and is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each of the like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapur. By way of caution, the Court would require the applicant to report before the Station House Officer concerned on every Monday at 11.00 a.m., which shall be duly recorded. Further, any deviant behavior or commission or involvement in any offence or there being any threat issued by him, if brought to the notice of the Court, may be a ground for cancellation of his bail.
11. Accordingly, I.A.No.6 of 2021 stands disposed of.
12. At this juncture, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI submitted that he has filed I.A.No.7 of 2021 seeking cancellation of the 6 provisional bail granted to the appellant no.2- accused no.6 on 25.10.2011 which was obtained by submitting fake documents.
13. In view of the fact that the learned counsel representing the concerned appellant no.2/accused no.6 is not present in Court, as prayed for by learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, the matter be listed on 18.04.2022.
_________________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J) ________________________________ (G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J) C.C today MP 7